Ken you are are just like BA - the whining continues even when the engines are shut down - you have so much to say however you don't have the guts to say who you are....believe you me - people know who you are and you opinion is not valued at all.
Nev, It's getting sad when a type endorsement is seen as a 'freebie'. God help us - even at Cityrail and Sydney Buses the drivers don't have to pay for their endorsements. How low can this profession sink? Now don't hit me, lads, but I've got to say I don't actually mind Ken. Sure he's factually wrong sometimes but often he articulates what might be called the 'management position'. Part of the problem, and why there are so many 'where to now, Qantas' type of threads here [and in other similar places] is that QF management is spectacularly bad at engaging the troops in any meaningful and coherent dialogue. They are hunkered in their bunker and you'll just do what you're told or else. We are the managers and we have the Divine Right of Kings to manage, Goddammit! The travelling public and sections of the media are equally confused by the whole 'dual airline/ LCC' thing. I think it's been done to death that setting up a Magda Cheap and Cheerful brand and then putting loyal high expectation Qantas customers without any choice onto a codeshare with Jet* has been a recipe for disaster. You save a dollar but lose the customer, anywhere they have a choice. It does not matter whether the cheap brand has the new aircraft etc. It's all about brand positioning and customer perception. That's the point of failure with the model. And yet they want to export this model all over Asia? As minority partners in hostile environments? Management expertise, anyone? So keep contributing, Ken. I often don't much like what you say [and I'll be happy to tell you when you are factually wrong] but we'd be silly to exclude your opinion from the debate. Not that any of this is going to do us any good. Hanrahan is no longer with us, but you know what he always said.
Last edited by Captain Gidday; 31st Mar 2012 at 13:20.
The problem is that Qantas Management (for want of a _far_ better word) are totally incompetent.
They have not a clue about how to run a business, would be incapable of it on their own and can only do it when there are hundreds of millions of dollars to play with.
The BBCTV series Back to Floor might be a good place to start.
I am indescribably angry at these thieves and charletans for doing what they have done. They STILL just do not even understand how much it is they don't understand. And it is nothing about engagement. Qantas staff didn't need to be engaged in the past, they took great pride in their jobs - the engagement came from their own activity not from management. It was taken for granted everyone did their 'best' for the company - Qantas was everything. Under the appalling management of the last ten years staff are not even being given the tools (mental and physical) to be able to take pride in their roles. Current engagement is a symptom of sycophantic yes-sir management that is totally devoid of airline operational experience. It (engagement) is emphatically NOT about excel awards or 'meet the troops' meetings. All of those things are nothing but an insult when they are given by people who it is absolutely impossible to respect. Management requires exacting standards of its workforce. Unfortunately management is clearly demonstrating in every way possible that they are a bunch of unpoliced, unskilled, greedy & incompetent buffoons who know less than nothing about brand management and airline operations.
Qantas staff see themselves as custodians of the brand, and much like country farmers have a very strong desire to leave the land to their children in better condition than when they got it themselves.
Qantas management see themselves as worthy of grand remuneration and self aggrandisement and have a very strong desire to leave themselves in a much better financial position when they leave the company than when they joined. And which company they join and leave is irrelevant.
When 'management' applied to work at Qantas, they applied for a job (with an insulting staff travel category). When 'staff' apply they apply for a career with an icon and to be part of something very special. This is the principal difference in attitude between the two groups in Qantas.
Last edited by V-Jet; 31st Mar 2012 at 03:56.
Reason: grammar
I don't know what you do with a airline that is such a integral part of the country, such a part of the history of the country. QF is not nor ever has been just a airline, its the National Carrier, the big fella, with a proud war history, one of the most prestige companies in the country. Its not something you can just ignore, let it run down and say blithely cost to much to run, so over to JQ, much cheaper. The day Joyce pulled the plug sent the country into a shockwave, waddya mean its not flying? All of a sudden the people were without their security blanket, no red tails overhead, all of a sudden something was missing, the country was not the same, they felt outraged, vulnerable, it mattered not they were not booked to fly, that was not the point, and the outrage came thru media outlets for the next 48 hours as Joyce went from villain to hero back to villain as confusion rained. When the dust settled, Joyce must have felt unsettled, as he would have to have recognised he was dealing with something else other than just another airline, that he was dealing with history, a huge part of the history of this country, for without the aircraft this country is to big to operate, (as we found out to our horror in 89) as Australia started to grind to a halt. By fair means or foul, QF must never be allowed to diminish, never, it must be there for future generations of pilots, engineers CC and ground staff, it must be there for the future of the country, for the history of the country, it has well and truly earned its place in history and that can never be diminished, and it must be passed on to a CEO and board who give it the respect it deserves, and the future it deserves. Simplistic yes, but even in this "slick" time when history matters nil, somethings just don't warrant changing, QF is right up there.
Ah well, it's good to see that the usual suspects have been out in force with their personal denigration, not just of me but with anyone who dares put a contrary view. What a sad and sorry lot some of you are who cannot get above the personal and debate the substance of an issue? You know who you are, and what fun you must be to work with! Amen to that.
Sunfish: It is actually not about third world workers in Qf case. The 'real' staff at QF work for basically the same rates as they would work for any number of foreign airlines. And THAT is the tragedy, despite what the incompetent buffoons in charge dictate to the media, it is at its base level utter garbage.
The 'legacy' costs of Qantas Mainline are the costs that the idiots getting paid millions forced on the company by thinking they should be earning the same pay as the APA boys, playing finance games and not listening to anyone who had any operational experience of airlines or indeed anyone with even a quarter of a brain who said '777's'.
So.... There is no way in the world/universe that a 380 burning 13k of fuel per hour carrying 100-150 more pax than a 777 that burns 6k per hour is EVER going to compete.
And that is the problem. The buffoons in charge blame equal cost labour to make up for their total incompetence.
Who cares? They want to destroy the iCon and their incompetence actually increases the likelihood of 'proving' the case.
Scrotum Face has a nice Chateau in France (like Abeles did) and no doubt Elaine will achieve the same lofty personal bank account from the following the same path as dictated by Grand Poobah Clifford and Scroaty... All I can say is, I would LOVE be hit with the same barrage sales pitch that Airbus must have done on these guys - it MUST be a worlds best...
I don't know what you do with a airline that is such a integral part of the country, such a part of the history of the country. QF is not nor ever has been just a airline, its the National Carrier, the big fella, with a proud war history, one of the most prestige companies in the country.
Thats all well and good but when it comes to travel the budget traveller looks for price - where QF cannot compete (excluding Jetstar). The premium traveller looks for service - where too QF cannot compete.
Ask Australian citizens if they are ok with a Qantas tax that will be used to pay the QF salaries and support the organisation as is and all this nationalistic talk soon dies down.
Location: within a circle in a spiral, within a wheel within a wheel, never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel.
Posts: 448
Quote:
Gerry Harvey from Harvey Norman proposed this idiotic idea several years ago, Sunfish.
The Billionaires lament.
IIRC He was having trouble finding enough Australians who would demonstrate the required level of gratitude for receiving the min wage to have the opportunity to muck out his stables.
Joyce said if one considered his "conservative" AUD5 million a year salary and the hours he worked, he was lower paid than some senior pilots and captains. Source: The Australian
QANTAS pilots have lashed out at their chief executive Alan Joyce after he claimed he earns less than some of them.
After a brief lull in the war between pilots and the airline that culminated in the fleet's grounding six months ago, Mr Joyce has reignited their fury by discussing his salary in an magazine interview. He said if one considered his "conservative" AUD5 million a year salary and the hours he worked, he was lower paid than some senior pilots and captains.
"Alan Joyce is a mathematician, but I think he probably needs to invest some of that AUD5 million in a new calculator," Captain Richard Woodward, vice president of the Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) said. "To put that sort of package in perspective, if Mr Joyce worked 14-hour days, six days a week and never took a holiday -- he'd be on an hourly rate of AUD1,107.
"To describe AUD5 million a year as conservative is outrageous and insulting."
Mr Joyce made the comments to GQ magazine, saying: "What Qantas pays me as CEO is actually very conservative compared with the other ASX 100 companies and if you ranked salaries by hours worked, I'm not even the highest paid person in Qantas because the pilots and senior captains get paid a lot more." However, AIPA said even the top handful of pilots employed by Qantas, senior A380 captains, would have to work an impossible 357 hours a week to get Mr Joyce's annual package. The average hourly rate is AUD169 and the minimum guaranteed hours per year is 1040. Salaries range from AUD36 an hour for the lowest paid to the highest at AUD260 -- and these pilots have more than 12 years of experience.
Well said RW and good to see a story like this in the mainstream Murdock press. (for a change)
Quote:
It is actually not about third world workers in Qf case. The 'real' staff at QF work for basically the same rates as they would work for any number of foreign airlines. And THAT is the tragedy, despite what the incompetent buffoons in charge dictate to the media, it is at its base level utter garbage.
The 'legacy' costs of Qantas Mainline are the costs that the idiots getting paid millions forced on the company by thinking they should be earning the same pay as the APA boys, playing finance games and not listening to anyone who had any operational experience of airlines or indeed anyone with even a quarter of a brain who said '777's'.
This is why these guys running the show at Q are on the nose... people are starting to wake up and why pictures like this are finding their way into the mainstream press.
Not a great year so far for these two, The Qantas brand is suffering and Tourism Australia are struggling to attract bums on seats inbound... whilst local tourism is suffering a down turn...
Quote:
AUSTRALIANS place more trust in brands like Google, Apple and Ikea, while former leaders like Qantas are losing credibility.
Australia’s top 12 brands of the future:
Google
Apple
Ikea
PayPal
Youtube
Microsoft
Windows 7
eBay.com
Wii
Dyson
Vegemite
Subway
Some of the bigger brands that have seen a consistent decline in trust over the last five years:
I trust our buffoons will be careful wrecking our icon in China....
Matthew Ng's tragedy:
Quote:
.... The crux of Ng's case has been a crude power play for control of the lucrative travel company, GZL, which has offered a sobering insight into the influence of state-owned enterprises and the murkier aspects of China's judicial system
The oft quoted rising Aus dollar BTW might be decimating the local economy, but it does help outgoing tourism and thus pax numbers. Aussies are travelling like never before. I just hope the economy stays 'reasonably' strong, despite our dreadful government.
Your quite right Shon 7 of course they go for the cheaper airline, no different to me going to Bunnings then the more expensive privately run hardware shop down the road, but for some inexplicable reason I still like the hardware shop down the road, and admire the bloke for still battling Bunnings up the road. And they are the same, they use a cheaper airline to go to Bali, but expect QF to be always there, because its supposed to be there, its part of the countries fabric, and the minute it gets threatened they all start yelling lay off it. The point I am making is Joyce has been placed in the unenviable position of not just running any old airline that he can close down when it starts to fade, and bring in a young fresh airline that is more economic to run, but a airline that is married to the country it represents, and thereby lies the problem. Joyce and probably Dixon would probably just like the close the whole box and dice down, and make the far more economical JQ the new National Carrier, Joyce after all was not born here, so would not have the same affection or loyality that QF attracts, and Dixon is only ever attracted to a dollar, but had the sense not to go to far with QF before he found himself drawn and quartered, far easier to hand it over to someone who has little idea and take the flack. So doomed if he does and doomed if he does not is Joyce, dealing with a top heavy aging airline, that is so firmly entrenched in the country, he cannot destroy it, as much as he would love to, so all that is left is dismantle it slowly, destroy its engineering capacity, making life difficult for its pilots, destroying moral amongst its cabin crew and ground staff, taking it off lucrative routes, and failing to buy the 777, but keeping aged uneconomical aircraft flying and slowly but surely it will die and natural death, that cannot be blamed on its board or CEO but a natural death caused by a changing world, that a old fashioned company like Qantas cannot possibly keep up with, and JQ the new kid, economical, with the newest aircraft, cheap labor both on the flight deck and behind it is the way to go. This is obvious to even blind freddy, but now its up to its staff to halt his progress, for QF is a fine airline that deserves better, and is worth fighting for, and hopefully its staff will eventually win, Joyce will go and someone who has the companies future as heart, who is prepared to take it into the future as a vibrant, experienced airline will take his place. One can only hope.
Your quite right Shon 7 of course they go for the cheaper airline, no different to me going to Bunnings then the more expensive privately run hardware shop down the road, but for some inexplicable reason I still like the hardware shop down the road, and admire the bloke for still battling Bunnings up the road...
How exactly would you sustain QF on the international side where it is losing tons of money. As I said before, all this nationalistic talk goes out the window if you ask people whether they are ok with their taxes being raised to support the airline.
Shon7, it is Qantas management saying that "Qantas International" is losing money. However, they produce no accounts for "Qantas International", so it is a "trust us" statement. I don't buy it, show me the data, and the assumptions in the accounts. Don't just take this statement at face value, when it is un-testable. This is the crux of the issue, if something is repeated enough does it becomes the truth? Propaganda 101.
Lets for the sake of the argument take at face value that "Qantas International" is losing money. Is it because of:
Inefficient aircraft (old aircraft)
High maintenance costs (old aircraft)
Labour practices
Internal accounting practices
Which makes the biggest contribution to the loss? If you have two internal airlines, one with new aircraft, one with old, I wonder which one will make the losses?
The truth is there would be only a few executives who know on a genuine like-for-like basis, the comparison of the profitability of any of the internal operations. As Sunfish has so adequately demonstrated, there is little to no expert aviation accounting outside the airlines, an hence they are effectively a law unto themselves.
This is why the "Group" structure is so useful, all the segments can be thrown in, mixed around in a big stew, with the final profit figure ladelled out in the ASX statutory accounts along with the "trust us" profit & loss for the internal divisions.
To what end? To negate The Qantas Sales Act and set course for a rollicking deal-a-thon and immense personal wealth.
Shon 7, the people would probably react the same way as they did when Gillard announced yet another legup for the car industry, but as the car industry, namely Holden, did not offer any compensation for the money like increased productivity, in fact the car unions on upon hearing the wonderful news immediately asked for a pay rise! So the public are not exactly enamoured by "leg ups" to any industry. Qantas perhaps might be treated a little differently, perhaps nationalisation would be again considered, perhaps not, and in reality Holden and Qantas are and were almost partners in Australia's growth, from the end of the WW2 to the nineties and beyond. As for QF international who knows what money they do or do not make, it is not clear, and many believe money made is siphoned off into JQ, that the truth is not being told, in fact too many believe it for it not to have some basis. Be in no doubt the plan since Dixon was to destroy the QF we know, to hand the basis of it over to the "joey" where the same job can be done for nix compared to QF, whether they planned to totally destroy QF or leave it as a" boutique" airline, only they know, but they will do what they think they can get away with, of that you can be certain, unless some clear thinking individual comes along who believes QF is and should remain the national carrier, and run it accordingly. The next two years will be telling. If I was a S/O now for QF I would cut it and run, if I wanted to stay in OZ I would head to JQ, even if it was a DRW basing or whatever, adjust the families lifestyle to the new wage, (you are still not going to starve) and hope for a command in the next ten years. My second youngest is about to do just that, and I don't blame her one moment, in fact I encouraged it. Its a gamble but then so is life, and once done you can then settle to a new career, instead of looking over your shoulder. This is of course a intensely personal decision, but she is sick of not being sure anymore, its not what she hoped for, or expected, but she is only twenty six with no dependents (well, one cat) and her life ahead of her. This is not to encourage others to follow her, far from it, but it is a action that reflects where QF is today, and never was before, it would have been a unthinkable action even 10 years ago.
I fully agree with your post, such as, if now a Second Officer in mainline, now it the time to leave.
Sadly those at the top of the QF pilot gravy train see no need for a change. Those below just keep up a 'stock together' mantra, and fail to see that the industry has changed.
The employees in QF needed to volunteer and drive changes to their working practices a long time ago. Jeez, talk to BA pilots, they have had 3 paycuts in the last decade or so, but still fly all their own aircraft. They just bought BMI, (the old British Midland), and agreed to work harder in shorthaul and gave up 2 leave days in long and shorthaul to amalgamate the loss-making BMI into BA.
I do not work for either QF or BA, but I would prefer BA to be my employer than QF
It's certainly strange how qf international has made profit for he last 10 yrs and suddenly its bleeding to the tune of 200 mill.(see previous AGM statements) no mention by exec how after 8 yrs J * aisia make a paltry profit of 18 mill ? Where's the return on capital there ? Creative accounting at its best!
Tidbinbilla
